JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This second appeal arising out of an appellate decree affirming the Trial Court decree.

2. Shorn of details, the plaintiff alleged that the suit property previously belonged to one Zamindar named Annandya Prasanya Mukhopadhya (hereinafter referred to as ‘Annandya’). This Zamindar was in possession of the suit property. He gave a “jamabandobosto” in favour of one Warish Mondal who is the grandfather of the plaintiff who paid taxes to the Zamindar. It is alleged that the State of West Bengal is trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. In view thereof the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The defendant has entered their appearance and filed a written statement. The defendant contested the suit.

4. Along with the copy of the previous judgments, it has been discovered that Alikadar Mondal has been examined as PW-1, Akram Mondal as PW-2, and certified copy of Kabuliyatnama dated 21.05.1907 as Exhibit-1, certified copy of E.A. Act as Exhibit-2, 11 rent receipts as Exhibit-3 and notice and A/D card as Exhibit-4. Following the same, BL and LRO have been examined as DW-1 and Settlement record marked as Exhibit-A.

5. The Trial Court framed six issues out of which one of the issues framed was determination of plaintiff’s right, title and interest in the suit property. The learned Trial Court relying upon Exhibit-2 which is a settlement Parcha along with evidence of PW-1 has come to a finding that the said document namely Exhibit-2 would go to show that there was no land in the suit Khatian.

6. PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he would not file “B” form which is required to retain land if the person wants to retain land under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, hereinafter called W.B.E.A. Act. On the aforesaid purpose the Trial Court arrived at a finding if the intermediary had retained the land he would have filed the “B” form inasmuch as there is no document relating to “jamabandobosto”. In fact, PW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that he was unaware that the suit property belonged to Zamindar or not.

7. Rent receipt produced before the Trial Court, however, would go to show that they paid taxes but it is well settled that payment of such taxes does not establish title over the property. Moreover, the appellant could not establish the chain of titles as the Appellant could not establish whether right, title and interest of the land was settled to Warish Mondal by way of “jamabondobosto”. It was for the plaintiff to complete the chain of title for claiming the decree. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

8. The order of Learned Appellate Court has meticulously analysed the evidence. The contention of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the plaintiff is the owner of the ‘Baor’ (uncared water body) situated in Dag No. 685 covering an area about 39.500 bigha more or less in which plaintiffs are Raiyat. The predecessor of plaintiffs acquired the said Baor by way of registered deed of Kabulati dated 20.05.1907 for which 15.50 paisa was fixed as annual fee. One Waris Mondal got Kabuliayatnama by executing a registered deed of Kabulati dated 21.05.1907 executed on 20.05.1907 in favour of Gobardangs’s Jamindar Ananda Prassana Mukhopadhyay at annual consideration of Rs.15.50. The said Waris Mondal paid rent regularly and his name was finally published in the settlement record. After his death, the name of Manik Mondal was recorded as his only legal heir and he paid rent regularly. By passage of time, the legal heirs of Manik Mondal namely Khodabox Mondal, Azijur Rahaman Mondal, Majibur Rahaman Mondal inherited the suit property after the death of Manik Mondal and started paying rent to the Government. They had regularly paid tax to the government and was enjoying the suit property but in the month of May, 1971 the legal heirs of Manik Mondal heard from the local employee of State of West Bengal that the said Baor and